The Continued Denial of Science in America

author: Kevin Ryan

In 2017, hundreds of thousands of Americans took to the streets to protest the Trump Administration's denial of science. However, most people in this new science-promoting movement willfully deny basic laws of science when those laws relate to one particularly sensitive subject of national discourse.

For example, many Americans have denied the Law of Conservation of Momentum as it relates to the destruction of the World Trade Center in New York City on September 11, 2001. Although conservation of momentum is taught and understood by students in secondary school, the alleged violation of this law is widely accepted by those who are faced with the obvious, evidence-based alternative that explosives were used to bring the buildings down.

Similarly, Americans who support the official account have also denied the Law of the Conservation of Angular Momentum. In this case, the top section of the south tower rotated off its axis and should have continued rotating and falling intact along the side of the building but it did not. Instead the top section was simply pulverized in mid air by unseen forces.

The Law of the Conservation of Energy was also violated on 9/11, if one believes the official government account. One way in which this can be seen is with regard to temperatures needed to achieve the government's claim that steel softened throughout a wide swath of each building. The jet fuel and office furnishings in the Twin Towers did not provide the energy needed for the steel components to reach temperatures needed to soften steel. More importantly, molten metal was observed at the site of the WTC destruction and this fact can only be explained by the presence of thermitic materials, for which there is an enormous amount of evidence.

In 2017, hundreds of thousands of Americans took to the streets to protest the Trump Administration's denial of science. This began with the "March for Science" in April and continued throughout the year with scientists and supporters trying to find their political voice. However, most people in this new science-promoting movement willfully deny basic laws of science when those laws relate to one particularly sensitive subject of national discourse.

For example, many Americans have denied the Law of Conservation of Momentum as it relates to the destruction of the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001. This point was made in a peer-reviewed scientific paper published in a journal of civil engineering (see point #5). Although conservation of momentum is taught and understood by students in secondary school, the alleged violation of this law is widely accepted by those who are faced with the obvious, evidence-based alternative that explosives were used to bring the buildings down.

Similarly, Americans who support the official account have also denied the Law of the Conservation of Angular Momentum. In this case, the top section of the south tower rotated off its axis and should have continued rotating and falling intact along the side of the building but it did not. Instead the top section was simply pulverized in mid air by unseen forces.

The Law of the Conservation of Energy was also violated on 9/11, if one believes the official government account. One way in which this can be seen is with regard to temperatures needed to achieve the government's claim that steel softened throughout a wide swath of each building. The jet fuel and office furnishings in the Twin Towers did not provide the energy needed for the steel components to reach temperatures needed to soften steel. More importantly, molten metal was observed at the site of the WTC destruction and this fact can only be explained by the presence of thermitic materials, for which there is an enormous amount of evidence.

The U.S. government took great pains over a period of years to ignore the evidence for what actually happened at the WTC site while taking a politically driven, anti-scientific approach to it. Sadly, subsequent administrations and many professional scientists have ignored this political abuse of science in order to avoid sensitive implications that could threaten their careers. Today's science-promoting Americans have, in many cases, also ignored the evidence and have therefore practiced the opposite of what they preach. That is, abuse of science is bad when Trump does it but is perfectly acceptable when "conspiracy theories" are the only other choice.

Meanwhile, 9/11 victim's families continue to fight for justice and scientists in other countries can be seen rejecting the spread of America's anti-science approach.

When Americans are truly willing to stand up for science no matter the political implications, society might begin to heal from the violence and destruction of American values that began with those fateful crimes. Until then, the world will continue to suffer the consequences of the willful ignorance of science in America.